The Republican candidates' circular firing squad now seems to be using machine guns. Whoever the eventual "last man standing" turns out to be, he may not be standing very tall or very steadily on his feet  and he may be a pushover for Barack Obama in the general election, thanks to fellow Republicans.

Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, this is a very serious and historically crucial time for the United States of America. What Mitt Romney did or did not do when he was with Bain Capital, or what Newt Gingrich did or did not say to his ex-wife, are things that should be left for the tabloids.

With the economy still faltering and Iran on its way to getting nuclear bombs, surely we can get serious about the issues facing this nation. Or can we?

Mitt Romney's boasts about what he did at Bain Capital are as irrelevant as Newt Gingrich's demagogic attacks on Romney's role there. Romney is not running to become head of Bain Capital.

While Gingrich backed away from his demagoguery about Bain Capital, Romney is continuing to press ahead with his charges that Gingrich was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac. As someone who has been a consultant, but never a lobbyist, I know the difference.

As a consultant, I have offered advice to people in government and in private organizations, both businesses and non-profit organizations. But I have never gone to a government official to urge that official to make a decision favorable to those who were paying me, or to those for whom I did free consulting.

It takes two to tango, and lobbying requires not only a lobbyist but also someone who is being lobbied. With more than 500 people in Congress alone who could have been lobbied, and additional officials in the bureaucracies, if Romney cannot find even a single person to say that Gingrich lobbied him or her, then it is long past time for him to either put up or shut up.

On the other hand, if Romney just wants to sling a lot of mud in Newt's direction and hope that some of it sticks, then that should tell the voters a lot about Romney's character.

So much of what has been said by various Republican candidates, as well as by the media, has been in the nature of unsubstantiated, peripheral or irrelevant talking points for or against particular candidates, rather than serious statements about serious issues confronting the nation.

So common has this approach become that even some conservative writers have come to the defense of John King, the CNN reporter who opened the South Carolina debate with a question about Newt Gingrich's former wife. These writers have declared that question "legitimate," in some undefined sense.

If all that "legitimate" means is that John King was not doing anything that many other reporters would have done in the same circumstances, that is making common practice a substitute for our own judgments about what is and is not relevant in a given context. Neither the audience in that room nor the millions watching on television were there to find out about Newt Gingrich's marital problems. If it is a common practice for the media to focus on such things, so much the worse for the media  and for the country.

"The politics of personal destruction"  as Bill Clinton called it, and as he himself practiced it  is not the way to solve the nation's problems. It has already poisoned the well of political discourse this season and claimed Herman Cain as its first victim, on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations by women with checkered pasts of their own.

Whether Herman Cain was good, bad or indifferent as a candidate, and whether his chances of winning the Republican nomination were substantial or non-existent is not the issue. Nor is this the issue as regards Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or any other candidate.

Poisoning the well of political discourse may be one of the reasons why we see such unsatisfactory sets of candidates for political office in both parties, not only this year but in previous election years as well.

Many able and decent people are understandably reluctant to subject themselves and their families to a mud-slinging contest or to media "gotcha" questions. The creeping acceptance of such practices is hardly a justification, but is itself part of the degeneration of our times.

I also believe the electorate has already proven that it will not wake from it’s stupor until it is too late. I have no doubt whatsoever, for one simple reason: It became “too late” before Obama was even elected, though he has exacerbated the situation greatly.

Sowell is exactly right. Truth is, we’re just not very good at selecting and electing Presidents. Our process is all wrong. There certainly is a particular skill set that Presidents need to have— and our electoral process doesn’t test for any of that. Instead, our tests are all about things that don’t really matter for the actual job of being President.

We’re far better at seeking out and selecting a new American Idol that we are at finding new Presidents. The “debates” (which aren’t really even debates) are useless. Presidents don’t need debate skills. What they need is the ability to listen to diverse opinions and differing advice— and recognize good advice when they hear it. Presidents don’t need an encyclopedic knowledge of facts about the world or even it’s leaders. What they need is a gift for quickly assimilating new information in order to make sound decisions, perhaps on topics that they first learned about that morning.

The real day-to-day skills that make a President aren’t things that we come even close to in our selection process. I’m not sure what to do about it, but there’s got to be a better answer.

11
posted on 01/25/2012 11:42:27 AM PST
by Ramius
(Personally, I'd give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)

Too true. Until socialism bites the American people hard and painfully on their collective butts, too many will never wake up. As long as their bellies are full, they have mind-numbing entertainment, can have as much reckless sex as they want, then they will continue along the path of slavery and surrender their freedom and liberty.

Yep -- a nice kind of compliment he paid Newt, noting that Newt's been smart enough to ease off on the Bain Capital "demagoguery" (I think that term's a little strong for what Newt was doing, but that's me -- I defer to Sowell here). And then this beaut:

"On the other hand, if Romney just wants to sling a lot of mud in Newt's direction and hope that some of it sticks, then that should tell the voters a lot about Romney's character.

Great jumpin' Jehosephat, I do love Thomas Sowell.

Then he goes on to mention something that's been bugging me for days, YES! And that is that Romney keeps referring to Newt as a "lobbyist," when he was a consultant. There's a big difference. Thank you, Thomas Sowell.

Poisoning the well of political discourse may be one of the reasons why we see such unsatisfactory sets of candidates for political office in both parties, not only this year but in previous election years as well.

Sowell is exactly right. Truth is, were just not very good at selecting and electing Presidents. Our process is all wrong. There certainly is a particular skill set that Presidents need to have and our electoral process doesnt test for any of that. Instead, our tests are all about things that dont really matter for the actual job of being President.

Part of the problem is the visual media. Ever since the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon debate, the criteria changed from substance to style. How does the candidate look and speak to the camera becomes important, not what they are saying.

16
posted on 01/25/2012 11:57:23 AM PST
by kosciusko51
(Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)

If the party bosses allowed a true conservative with guts on the ballot without interference there would not be a problem with the election or this country for that matter.

I ask you on the day of your daughter's wedding. Do you really believe that? Me? I ain't so sure. I live in a country where 53% of the voters had no trouble pulling the lever for a jive-ass Chicago Community Organizer, whose very name is not a settled question.

With $4 gas, and 10% unemployment (at least), that same 53% is still out there. "Conservatism" requires thoughtful analysis, enlightened self-interest, the ability to detect the difference between bullshiite and Shinola, etc.

My research over to the Wal-Mart parking lot has convinced me that these attributes are in shorter supply than we might like.

What they need is the ability to listen to diverse opinions and differing advice and recognize good advice when they hear it. Presidents dont need an encyclopedic knowledge of facts about the world or even its leaders. What they need is a gift for quickly assimilating new information in order to make sound decisions, perhaps on topics that they first learned about that morning.

All fine and good. I would add as a first requirement the ability to have all decisions strictly follow the language and intent of the United States Constitution.

Our Republic would have been much better served if our leaders did not undertake to "help the people" in the cause of solving "problems." We would have a more peaceful, ordered, and prosperous Republic.

20
posted on 01/25/2012 12:27:25 PM PST
by sand88
(Hey Rove et al, I will, with great pleasure, NOT cast a vote for the Statist Mitt.)

When Reagan pronounced his famous 11th commandment, his statement was in the context of ‘Republicans’ and not what we see today as ‘Republicans + Rat Infiltrators aka RINOs’.

If anyone should think it far-fetched that a circle of democrats would devise and execute a plan to infiltrate the GOP, such people would be naive to say the least. Just today we hear a top Romney advisor stating point blank to the media that Obamacare will not be repealed.

Was Bloomberg once a Republican? When he ran first for NYC mayor he was certainly running as a Republican but he was certainly never a ‘Republican’. He was a democrat that could not win his own party’s nomination, so to overcome his own party’s rejection of him, he ran as Republican. Shall we not say bad things of Bloomberg because he seized the Republican brand for his own purposes?

Rat infiltrators to the GOP are now legion. I am sure if RR were here today to see it that he would clearly point out that at the very least the GOP RINO establishment needs a good shakeup.

Was George H. W. Bush aka Bush Elder a Rat Infiltrator RINO? No, he was not. He was a longtime Republican with a stellar service record in the USN and a capable Executive Branch appointee (CIA), but he lacked political courage. Lacking political courage does not make one a democrat infiltrator. Lacking political courage makes one incapable of rallying one’s followers to be inspired by a conservative vision of the future. That does not a democrat make, rather it makes one a footnote to history rather than a page to it.

A Rat Infiltrator is a person that identifies themselves as a democrat but becomes a Republican for nefarious purposes or because it suits their selfish ends.

Deomcrats that ‘defect’ can only be genuine if they were part of the now near extinct species of conservative democrats aka ‘Bluedogs’. They were conservatives in a historically democrat district that had since turned liberal, and they find a need to make the crossover in order to be true to their values.

Ronald Reagan was one such democrat ‘defector’ although he ably characterized the ‘defection’ as “I did not leave the democrat party, that party left me”.

But in his time, Reagan knew there existed many conservative democrats, who were loyal to the United States, to capitalism and to the Constitution. But he also knew there were many hardcore leftists in the democrat party who had no allegiance to the United States and its Constitution. I am certain if RR saw those hard core leftists crossover into the GOP, he would have pointed them out and would have made them an exception of his 11th commandment.

21
posted on 01/25/2012 12:30:34 PM PST
by Hostage
(The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)

“I live in a country where 53% of the voters had no trouble pulling the lever for a jive-ass Chicago Community Organizer, whose very name is not a settled question.”

I’m not sure about that. I think we are underestimating the scope of election fraud. I very much doubt that he got more than 45% of the valid votes cast.

Even if he did get 53%, that represents what...a quarter of eligible voters, approximately?

Why the low turnout? Must have been because McLame was so inspiring.

Not all of the Walmartians are stupid or completely lacking in common sense. I think a lot of people are starting to make the connections between taxation, over-regulation, and the scarcity of jobs.

Admittedly I am living in a very red state, but I have only seen two “Obama 2012” bumper stickers so far.

On top of that, the wackadoo wing of the extreme left are miffed with the Kenyan commie for failing to display a sufficient degree of lunacy.

If the Stupid, Cowardly, Rubber-Chicken-Eating, Surrender-Sissy Party mounted a halfway adequate campaign (I know, figure the odds), they could choose a sack of leper butts for their nominee and still beat the loathesome alien.

23
posted on 01/25/2012 12:34:19 PM PST
by dsc
(Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)

Fidelity to the constitution, character, passion, leadership, experience in management, organizational skills. That's the kind of stuff we should be thinking about but, the media and the others keep dragging out the rumors, innuendo and out right lies to keep us in a state of chaos. And it works.

Deomcrats that defect can only be genuine if they were part of the now near extinct species of conservative democrats aka Bluedogs. They were conservatives in a historically democrat district that had since turned liberal, and they find a need to make the crossover in order to be true to their values.

Ronald Reagan was one such democrat defector although he ably characterized the defection as I did not leave the democrat party, that party left me.

How would you categorize Rudy Guiliani ? He was a liberal democrat that got sick of the machinations of the party, he was not then, nor is now, a conservative. Never the less, Reagan saw fit to make him a U.S. Attorney and supported him there.

My personal opinion, is that while Rudy isn't a "Rat Infiltrator", he is absolutely a liberal who would love to turn the GOP to the left, like Chris Christie...to many people mistake partisanship with ideology.

Rudy is no conservative, but while he may be very partisan (at least now) with the GOP, he sure as hell is liberal (In NYC, he ran on not only the republican partys line, but also the now defunct Liberal party ballot line).

Guiliani was a Reagan democrat, he was never a genuine Republican. He ran against Dinkins twice; the first he lost and the second time he won only because Dinkins stunk so bad that even the most ardent base democrats had a tough time supporting Dinkins.

Was Guiliani a Rat Infiltrator to the GOP? Yes and no. He went from democrat (Carter) to independent (Ford) to republican (Reagan). He went to GOP only to further his career as prosecutor and because Reagan was so appealing.

Yes he was an infiltrator because he used the GOP brand in much the same way that Bloomberg used it, for his own ends. He was never a Republican in ideology, that he believed in limited government, in strict interpretation of the Constitution.

No he was not an infiltrator because of his appeal within the GOP as adhering to a philosophy of the Rule of Law.

So he is difficult to classify but I would say that under a Conservative Revolution of the type that rolls back the New Deal, rids the USA of the LBJ Great Society, discredits the Compassionate Conservatism of George W. Bush and seeks to appoint unequivocally conservative justices, I would say that Guiliani would not participate as a GOP ideologue, so that the GOP would leave him and he would be nowhere except as a New Yorker in NYC affairs.

33
posted on 01/26/2012 5:51:22 AM PST
by Hostage
(The revolution needs a spark. The Constitution is dead.)

Rudy, to me, and as a New Yorker, was a liberal,while despised by democrats, it was more over the party then the ideology. Simply put, Rudy hates the democratic party, he doesn't hate their ideas, he just hates them (which is one of the reasons for the viceral hatred that he garners).

That said, when he ran for President, one of his campaign promises, and one he was most likely to keep, was to appoint strict constructionists to the bench, though to be frank, on economic matters, he showed alot of conservative viewpoints, and he was in the hawk camp on foreign policy, but on social issues, he was to the left of Bill Clinton, and John McCain and everyone else (I could name a dozen democrats who are more conservative then him). I wouldn't mind seeing him as a republican senator or governor (for NY, and only NY), but on the federal level, only DHS, and thats it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.